Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil engineering software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by East718 (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 13 November 2007 (→Civil engineering software: k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 04:01, 13 November 2007 by East718 (talk | contribs) (→Civil engineering software: k)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. east.718 at 04:01, 11/13/2007
- Civil engineering software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Very broad subject, maybe better suited for a category or a list than an article. Unreferenced. Martijn Hoekstra 13:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Life is an awfully broad subject, but it's not a category or list. The article is so short I'm not sure it really says anything that isn't common sense and needs referencing. --136.223.3.130 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly. Like other software related articles, this raises spam concerns, and I doubt that many packages are of sufficient general interest to meet WP:SOFT. A general article on the sorts of software used by civil engineers is probably better than articles on individual packages, and this text seems a reasonable stub. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a category, it would end up being an endless list entries that are all either barely or not at all notable. Only AutoCAD is of unquestionable notability, but there are thousands of other products out there. This is about software not meant for the general public. The lack of referencing should be dealt with by the addition of an {{unreferenced}} tag. --Blanchardb 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.